You don’t even know what you’re talking about, conflating apples and oranges. The Baltic independence movements aren’t referred to as color revolutions, those happened in the 2000s in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.
And of course, something cannot be the result of foreign involvement, awful racial-nationalist thought that has plagued the Baltics for ages (and still does), and malevolent capital interests if lots of people are holding hands, that much is clear.
Holy liberal brainrot. Did you just seriously link the wikipedia article for “color revolutions”, a series of CIA-backed counterrevolutionary and deeply reactionary insurgencies, as a list for successful non-violent ‘revolutions’?
All of those color revolutions had massive detrimental effects on the population, skyrocketing inequality, destroying decades of progress in women’s liberation (the ex-Yugo regions for example still aren’t close to catching back up), and destroying education systems and economies, forcing them to sell out to international capital.
So how exactly did they produce “better institutional outcomes” than actual Socialist revolutions? Easier to exploit on the world market? Better startup culture? Lmao
afaik it’s not exactly the science it’s always made out to be, you just remove the poison gland, you know, the part with all the poison
It’s not really similar to methamphetamine.
Surprisingly, the standalone apk version is able to self-update and will remind you to do so.
The same could be said to defend Reddits moderation culture. Not saying I have a better idea or anything.
Yeah, but if you think Reddit moderators are bad, wait til you find out about the opinionated gatekeeping mess of censorship and harmful idealism that is the Wikipedia moderation.
It makes you someone who doesn’t understand what those terms mean, so a modern liberal.
Look: you can either own means of production and be part of the ruling class, or you can not own any and be forced to sell your labor for the rest of your life. A social welfare state is something that purposely built by the ruling class to further their interests, with some concessions to past union efforts.
That’s not what socialism is, trust me, I live in a country with one of the oldest and strongest Social Democratic impact in the world, and while the effects of that are still nice today they do not change anything about the fact that a huge majority works to enrich a tiny minority, and Social Democrats like you have never seriously put an effort into changing that, historically.
So you’re a Social Democrat, got it. Those are pretty out of fashion over here and gave up pretending wanting to achieve Socialism long ago. Sorry, but I don’t really think that what you’re talking about is Socialism, it’s liberal reformism.
Yes, they may be state-owned, but you still live in a bourgeois state with capitalist ownership structure, so the state doesn’t act in the workers interest, but to uphold the capitalist order.
By the way, would you mind telling me what country that is? Most EU countries with strong state-owned infrastructure that I’m aware of have been forced to liberalize, so for example in my country lots of former state enterprises are now private profit-bound businesses that are just 100% owned by the state.
I don’t think you understand what an economic class is. A new class does not emerge because one person is more productive for society than another. It’s a question of what your relation to the means of production is, and in a communist, classless society there would be no inequality there.
Could you provide a few alternate definitions of Communism? Sounds interesting.
The different types of Socialists disagree on how to achieve the classless society called Communism (including Anarchists, by the way), but the end goal of a classless society is the same. There is no seperate “Marxist” definition of communism, he just took an idea that was considered utopian before him and turned it into a science.
How in the world do you come to the conclusion that Scandinavian workers own the means of production? Nothing even remotely close to that is the case, they just have a relatively well-funded welfare state, that has nothing to do with Socialism.
This is completely wrong. Social welfare and shared infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism is an economic model where the means of production are owned by the workers, nothing more, nothing less.
Just FYI, the 2 parent comments are completely wrong and you shouldn’t remember these definitions.
Socialism = means of production are owned by society, but classes still exist (the working class rules over the former bourgeoisie)
When that process is finished and classes and contradictions that lead to them have been completely abolished, that’s communism.
Which is the same society that Anarchists want to achieve, the only difference is that Anarchists don’t have a coherent plan on how to get there.
Winnie the Pooh is not banned in China, nice example for people falling for incredibly stupid propaganda.
How is Ukraine growing to be a ‘new rising power’ in Europe? It was a poor country with a weak economy before the war, and has now been in a years-long expensive military conflict costing them massively in manpower, infrastructure and put them in insane debt that they’ll be paying off for decades at least.
Yes, clearly communal water treatment and grain processing are to blame for that, not our profit-driven economic system.
How was I being bad faith? I presented numerous arguments as to why what the other person was saying was completely nonsensical, and my annoyed tone changes nothing about that fact. Notice how they adressed none of them, and both of you just focus on your poor little hurt feelings because someone on the internet spoke to you in an unsanitized tone. It’s almost like you’re distracting from how wrong your positions are on purpose.